When They Guillotined the Booksellers: Paris, Spring 1794

Dear bibliophiles, good day.

By Barthélémy d’Arcole, Inspector of Bibliophilic Aesthetics and Modern Heresies to the Guild of Bibliopolicés.

There is, in the history of French bookselling, a spring that nobody celebrates. It is the spring of Year II of the Revolutionary calendar. Between January and May 1794, in the weeks leading up to the fall of Robespierre, five Parisian book dealers went to the scaffold for doing what their trade had taught them to do: print, sell, ship, display in the shop window. None of them had taken up arms. None had conspired. All kept shop at the Palais-Royal, on the quai des Grands-Augustins, or in the Saint-Honoré quarter. The offence held against them was not plotting but having let printed sheets circulate. The indictment was not about their deeds but about their catalogues. They were condemned as booksellers.

The names are little known, and even well-informed bibliophiles meet them only in a footnote in Mellot, or in the work of Annie Duprat, on which I draw here. They are: Jacques-François Froullé, printer-bookseller on the quai des Grands-Augustins; Thomas Levigneur, his occasional partner, who set up shop within the very galleries of the Convention; François-Charles Gattey, bookseller at 14 Palais-Royal; Michel Wébert, bookseller and dealer in caricatures, also at the Palais-Royal; and finally a woman of whom the archives have kept only the name of a widow, la veuve Lesclapart, bookseller in Paris. Five people, five fates, one era and, give or take a few weeks, the same end.

Three of these five booksellers fell for the same book. It is a pamphlet that every eighteenth-century enthusiast should know, if not as a bibliographical object then at least as a historical document: the Liste comparative des cinq appels nominaux faits dans les séances des 15, 16, 17, 18 et 19 janvier 1793 sur le procès de Louis XVI [Comparative list of the five roll-call votes taken in the sessions of 15–19 January 1793 on the trial of Louis XVI]. The title looks dry. The contents are less so. It is a compilation of the votes of the deputies of the Convention on the death of the king, accompanied by a Relation des vingt-quatre heures d’angoisses qui ont précédé la mort de Louis XVI [Account of the twenty-four hours of anguish that preceded the death of Louis XVI] and by a footnote, modest in appearance, that would feed a French legend for two centuries: that of the “majority of a single vote”.

That footnote, more than anything, is what condemns. Royalists found in it the proof that the king had been murdered by a procedural stroke and not by the will of the people. The revolutionary authorities saw in it a manoeuvre, and the most dangerous of all, since it struck at the very legitimacy of the regicide. The pamphlet was printed by Froullé and Levigneur as early as April 1793. It spread. It travelled. Levigneur admitted having sold it openly at the door of the Convention, under the eyes of the people’s representatives, adding that after a few reproaches he had withdrawn it. Froullé, more deeply involved, confessed to having disposed of two thousand copies. Asked why he had not read the Relation des vingt-quatre heures before inserting it, he answered simply that he had not thought it dangerous, “by virtue of the freedom of the press”.

The argument carried little weight. The law of 29 March 1793, whose reach Froullé had perhaps not measured, imposed the death penalty on the authors and distributors of writings tending to restore the monarchy. Both booksellers were arrested on 8 Ventôse, Year II. Fifteen copies of the Liste were found at Froullé’s, along with twenty-seven suspect pamphlets and, a detail that did not help, a packet of cartridges. They were guillotined on 13 Ventôse, Year II (3 March 1794).

François-Charles Gattey did not fall for the Liste. He fell for the Actes des Apôtres, the great royalist journal launched in 1789 by Peltier, Suleau and their friends, of which he was the appointed publisher. Gattey was no latecomer to trouble with the Revolution. He had been at odds with the book-trade authorities since before 1789, and had even known Charenton for breaking the rules of the trade, which made him, in the profession, one of those disreputable booksellers whom the whole Palais-Royal knew. In May 1790 the commissioner Toublanc seized six packets of the Actes des Apôtres in his shop. An anonymous pamphlet appeared shortly afterwards under the eloquent title L’aristocratie du libraire Gattey punie par le peuple ou supplice des Actes des Apôtres [The aristocracy of the bookseller Gattey punished by the people, or the torment of the Acts of the Apostles].

Gattey carried on. He published, he sold, he distributed. The Revolution hardened around him and he changed nothing in his trade. Arrested in Year II and tried for active royalist propaganda and for supposed links with the counter-revolutionary networks of the colonies (he had correspondents in Saint-Domingue and in the Île-de-France), he went to the scaffold on 25 Germinal, Year II (14 April 1794). His case illustrates a second category of hunted bookseller: no longer the distributor of one particular text, but the merchant identified with an entire catalogue.

That leaves the last two. Michel Wébert, bookseller at the Palais-Royal, a native of Saverne, sold royalist caricatures, some of them engraved in such a way that weeping willows and funerary urns encoded tributes to the beheaded king. The veuve Lesclapart, of whom almost nothing is known, kept a shop in Paris. Both were guillotined on the same day, 20 May 1794. The charge against Lesclapart is laconic: having sold the Liste comparative. Having sold. Not printed. Not distributed through a network. Sold, as a bookseller sells whatever is on the shelves of her shop.

For the bibliophile, the name Lesclapart is not neutral. Under the Ancien Régime, Pierre-Antoine Lesclapart had been “marchand relieur-papetier-colleur et en meubles privilégié suivant la Cour” [merchant binder, stationer, paper-hanger and furnisher with a privilege to follow the Court]. At his death, around 1781, the privilege passed to Honoré-François Jollivet. Now this same Jollivet wrote to the Convention twelve years later, offering to strip the gold of the royal arms from the volumes of the Bibliothèque nationale at the rate of two sols a volume. Whether or not the widow Lesclapart guillotined in 1794 was the direct widow of the former binder to the Court (the Paris archives, largely destroyed in 1871, do not allow a formal answer, and the hypothesis would need checking in the central records of the notaries), the name alone is enough to draw, across the revolutionary decade, a strange symmetry. On one side of the privilege, a man prospers by offering to undo the bindings he was commissioned to serve. On the other side of the same name, a woman dies for having sold, as she had always done, what her shop sold. The coincidence of names here looks like a judgment.

It remains to understand why these five booksellers, and not the many others whose shops were searched between January and May 1794, went to the guillotine. The booksellers Garnéry and Desenne, suspected of the same complacencies, were released shortly after Thermidor. The distinction lies not in the gravity of the trade but in the moment of the arrest. Froullé, Levigneur, Gattey, Wébert and Lesclapart fell within the narrow window between the law of 29 March 1793, which made royalist propaganda a capital offence, and the fall of Robespierre on 9 Thermidor. A few weeks more, and they would have come through as Desenne and Garnéry did. A few weeks less, and the law would not yet have been passed.

The lesson, for the bibliophile, is archival rather than political. Books outlive their sellers. The Liste comparative can still be found today at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (shelfmark Lb41 354) and turns up regularly at public sales, with no catalogue mentioning that it cost five heads to those who circulated it. The copies of the Actes des Apôtres still met with in the trade rarely bear any trace of their executed publisher. For Wébert and Lesclapart it is worse: their stock was dispersed without any bibliographical note preserving their names beyond a mention in Mellot. The book survives. The bookseller passes.

Five guillotined in four months, for a few printed items. It is little, set against the 17,000 victims of the Great Terror. It is a great deal, set against a trade whose Parisian shops numbered a few dozen among practising printers, and a few hundred at most among all the merchant booksellers. And it is enough to be remembered, in a milieu that by tradition prefers its glorious binders to its martyred booksellers.

Principal sources: Annie Duprat, “Un réseau de libraires royalistes à Paris sous la Terreur”, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, no. 321, 2000, pp. 3-26. Jean-Dominique Mellot and Élisabeth Quéval, Répertoire d’imprimeurs-libraires XVIᵉ-XVIIIᵉ siècle, Paris, BnF, 1997. Archives nationales, W 332 (Froullé/Levigneur file) and W 345 (Gattey file).

GUILDE · BdA/MARTYRS-LIBRAIRES

La lettre du bibliophile

Si cette chronique vous a plu : recevez trois nouvelles par semaine — livres rares, reliures, enchères, et les Dossiers IGLI. 18 ans d'archives, quelques milliers de lecteurs.

Pas de pub, pas de revente de données. Désabonnement en un clic.

À lire ensuite

A Bibliophile’s Folly: The Fantasy of Reuniting Odd Volumes

Détail du frontispice de Frankenstein, 1831

Dear bibliophiles, good day.

By Mathieu Lenoir, slayer of received ideas, reader of present-day usages and appointed contradictor of bibliophilic confusions for the Guild of Bibliopolices.

I have in my cellar volume 43 of the Kehl edition of Voltaire’s works. Tree calf, smooth spine, green title label. I paid 5 € for it in a job-lot box at Drouot, the main Paris auction house, on a Thursday of ordinary sales, along with 11 other volumes of the same edition. The Kehl edition runs to 70 octavo volumes, published from 1784 to 1789. I once had as many as 12.

5 €. I did the sum that same evening. Everyone does. The proof?

I have no Encyclopédie and am not looking for one, but its figures are public. Lot 26 at Collin du Bocage, sold in 2018, puts the volume of the Encyclopédie at about 110 €. The original edition has 35 folio volumes: 17 of text, 11 of plates, 4 of supplement, 1 of supplement plates, 2 of index. 35 volumes at 110 € make 3,850 €. On 17 January 2018, in room 7 at Drouot, the 34-volume copy presented by Thierry de Maigret, estimated at 6,000 to 10,000 €, ended at 19,714 €. The gap is 15,000 € and some. A patient amateur, who spends his Saturdays at the secondhand book market of the Parc Georges-Brassens in Paris and his evenings on auction sites, tells himself that in 10 years he will have gathered the 35 and saved 15,000 €.

But no, actually, no.

The notebook exists, I kept one. 3 columns in pencil, the volume, the date of purchase, the price, and a 4th for the height in centimeters, added in the 2nd year when I understood why the volumes would not line up. One page for my Voltaire, and even so 9 purchases in 3 years, which took me to 21 volumes out of 70. I stopped the madness there. 20 went to a secondhand bookseller on the rue de Seine, who gave me 40 € for them, and I kept the 43rd, to remember the lesson well. The other 20 may be in your home.

The Encyclopédie was sold in sheets. Subscribers received the volumes as deliveries came and had them bound by their own binder, at their own expense. The survey published on this very site in 2013 counts 4,225 copies for the Paris edition.

So there were, roughly, 4,225 different bindings, in 4,225 leathers that resemble one another only from afar, with volume labels in 4,225 colors or nearly, edges red or left bare, and marbled endpapers that never come out of the same vat, and above all different lives. The volume XI you will find was never bound by the man who bound your volume X. It is 0.5 cm taller or shorter, because each binder trims in his own way, and 0.5 cm is visible at 3 meters on a shelf.

Buffon poses the same problem over 40 years. The Histoire naturelle of the Imprimerie royale (the Royal Press) runs to 36 quarto volumes, from 1749 to 1789. The first buyer of 1749, who was 30, was 70 at the last delivery, if he saw it, and Buffon himself died in 1788 before his last volume.

The copies of Buffon that come up for sale almost all have 2 or 3 bindings (or else they were bound afterwards), because nobody keeps the same binder for 40 years, and booksellers have a word for this in their descriptions: composite copy. Composite, in a description, designates bindings of 2 periods on a copy that stayed with the same subscriber (and not just that, we agree, it is equally apt for the Frankenstein enthusiasts)…

Recomposed designates volumes from several copies brought together after the fact by a bookseller or an amateur. Descriptions use the first without embarrassment; the second I have only ever read next to a low price. Cringe, as young bibliophiles say (yes, they exist, I met one in 1979).

A volume does not vanish at random. On 18 October 2022, the Paris auction house Tajan presented in room 11 a complete copy of the first edition, estimated at 12,000 to 15,000 €, whose first 7 volumes were in a different binding from the following 28. It found no buyer. The first 7 volumes are those of 1751 to 1757. The privilege was revoked in 1759, and the 10 following volumes of text were delivered all at once in 1765 under a false Neuchâtel address. 8 years separate the 7th delivery from the 8th. I suppose the subscriber died between the two, or the heir found the first binder too expensive. The copy was already not uniform in 1765. One can imagine anything, but in the end it is reality that wins out. The whole thing is botched.

And the plates?

They go missing more often than the text. The first edition has several thousand plates, and a plate of the Gobelins or the forge has been sold on its own, framed, for 2 centuries. On eBay, a German seller is offering, at the time of writing, 44 tapestry plates cut out of a volume. The volume you are missing may be the one that was dismembered. The volumes that circulate alone are the text volumes, XI and XIII, that nobody cuts up because there is nothing to frame. We shall come back to this: worse than the amateurs who dream of reuniting odd volumes, a fantasy as vain as it is laudable, there are those who want to gather loose leaves… I swear, I know one, we will talk about him in a few days!

I am not saying the market forgives nothing. Thierry de Maigret’s copy had a mismatched binding for volume III of the plates and for the 4 supplement volumes, it lacked 1 supplement volume out of 5, and it made 2 times its high estimate. 29 uniform volumes out of 34 get through. I have never seen a recomposed copy with 35 volumes in 10 bindings clear 10,000 €. Well, true, I did not look much. Can’t be bothered, as young bibliophiles say. If they exist, I met one in…

Well, let us say you manage it.

Say 12 years, 35 volumes, 35 sellers. Look at the shelf.

Volume I is in fawn calf with raised bands, with a bird fleuron in the compartments; volume II in marbled calf, browner, raised bands too, but the tools are pomegranates; volume III was redone in the 19th century in half green sheepskin with a flat spine, and it is 1 cm shorter, nausea; volumes IV and V come from the same copy and keep each other company; VI carries a black volume label when all the others have red or lemon yellow; the plates are in 4 bindings, one of them in municipal-library half cloth with a shelfmark in white ink on the spine. The gilding is not by the same hand nor of the same gold. The edges go from red to yellow to blue to nothing.

Mary Shelley published her monster in 1818, sewn from pieces taken from several bodies. Yours has 35 seams and it cost 3,850 €.

I know what comes next, because I saw it at a Guild colleague’s: the amateur who has gathered his 35 odd volumes cannot bear the shelf, and has the lot bound anew, in uniform red half shagreen, by a neighborhood binder who charges 150 € a volume. 5,250 € more. I saw it, in Lyon, at a binder’s! With my own eyes!

In passing, 35 eighteenth-century bindings, at least 20 of which had nothing wrong with them, went into the binder’s wastebin, and the copy now has 35 volumes trimmed a second time, in margins that a bookseller will describe as short. The result is uniform. I would not give 5,000 € for it, and I do not believe a bookseller would give more.

The description, for its part, does not forgive. A recomposed copy carries forever the words that describe it: bindings not uniform, volume VI from another edition. The words are not erased at the next sale, the next catalogue copies them. You will have bought 35 odd volumes and you will own 35 odd volumes standing side by side, or 35 volumes re-covered in new leather whose catalogue will say where they come from. The Thierry de Maigret catalogue wrote “légèrement dépareillée” [slightly mismatched] for 5 volumes out of 34, and the word followed the copy all the way to the results page. It makes me retch.

Not to mention that volume I of the Encyclopédie carries, folded in, the Système figuré des connoissances humaines, a table on a sheet larger than the volume. It tears at the fold, or ends up framed, and descriptions mention it when it is there because it is often missing. I have never seen this sheet come up for sale alone, and you will have your 35 volumes before you have it. Thierry de Maigret’s copy had it, it is true.

Adam Pilinski, a Pole settled in Paris, made in the 1870s and 1880s facsimiles of leaves of incunabula and sixteenth-century books, with pen and lithographic stone, so exact that booksellers used them to complete defective copies. Catalogues still carry today the mention “feuillet en fac-similé Pilinski” [leaf in Pilinski facsimile]. It lowers the price. It does not bring it down to zero, because Pilinski has himself become a collecting name, and a leaf by his hand is recognized under the loupe by the grain of the stone.

On the pastedown of my volume 43 of Kehl, a label of a Lyon bookseller, rue Mercière, and a price in pencil: 3 francs. Someone, in Lyon, bought a single volume long ago and kept it.

I sometimes go down to the cellar to look at it. I do not know what it contains. I have never opened it past the title page, and I have never looked for the 44th. Banished.

I know, I exaggerate, it is my signature.

GUILDE · ML/TOMAISON

The Guild has checked under the wardrobe; volume XII is not there. Document classified: restricted circulation.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.